ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2024
Clinical impact of baseline mitral regurgitation on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent highlights from theInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: latest evidence, gaps in knowledge, and future directions.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Review
- Recent highlights from theInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The clinical impact of baseline mitral regurgitation (MR) on the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not clear. This study sought to assess the clinical impact of baseline MR on outcomes after TAVR. Methods: The study was a retrospective analysis. Data was from 120 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVR at our center from June 2018 and July 2020. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30-day, 1- and 2-year follow-up. Results: The median follow-up was 736.0 (interquartile range, 666.0-965.0) days. Overall survival in patients with nonsignificant and significant baseline MR was not significantly different, while patients from the improved MR group after TAVR demonstrated a significantly higher survival than unchanged or worsened MR group during 2-year follow-up. NYHA functional class had generally improved at 1 year, with only 8.3 % of patients with nonsignificant MR and 17.5 % of patients with significant MR in class III or IV. Patients with improved MR at 1 year after TAVR had a significantly higher LVEF, smaller LVEDD and LVESD than those with unchanged or worsened MR. Among the significant baseline MR group, 70.4 % and 80.0 % of patients had improved to nonsignificant MR at 30-day and 1-year follow-up after TAVR, respectively. Conclusions: Significant baseline MR was not associated with the increased risk of all-cause mortality 2 years after TAVR. Significant baseline MR was improved in most patients at 1 year after TAVR. Patients with unchanged or worsened MR had an increased all-cause mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.